Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

After researching the whole 9/11 debate for a long time now, and seeing almost every film out there about it, I've come to realize that there are
many anomalies, gaping holes and mysteries on both sides that make no sense.

This is the mark of "true skepticism", the ability to apply critical thinking to both sides of an issue, including your own.

Here are some examples from each side - the official story and the inside job hypothesis.

Why the official 9/11 story doesn't make sense:

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it. But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free
fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete. No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result
in such a collapse.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, three skyscrapers collapsed completely from fire, the WTC towers and Building 7. Yet no steel skyscraper has
ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11. There is no scientific scenario that allows a skyscraper to collapse at near free fall speed from fire.
None at all.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, large airliners have crashed into structures and grounds and left no debris. No large airliner has ever
crashed and left no debris. Yet on 9/11, it happened to four airliners.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, the black boxes in crashed airliners disintegrated and were never found. In airline crashes, the black box
is always recovered. Crash investigators will tell you that. They are virtually indestructible and made of a bright orange/pink color, so they are
always found. Yet on 9/11, all four black boxes from the four flights were said to have disintegrated (contrary to testimonies that report
otherwise).
- So you see, there are just way too many "firsts" on 9/11 to buy. It would require a huge gigantic leap of faith to believe in all of them. It is
too implausible for a reasonable person to buy.
- The flight that hit the Pentagon made maneuvers that are virtually impossible on a 757, even for an expert pilot. Yet the hijacker that allegedly
flew the airliner was said to be a bad pilot who could not even fly a small plane well. This is impossible to explain away. Flight 77 made a 270
degree turn into a downward spiral at around 500mph, descending at such a rate as to guarantee crashing into the ground. Then it flew 6 feet above the
ground at 500mph before hitting the Pentagon, yet it is aerodynamically impossible for an aircraft to move at that speed so close to the ground.
- The five meter hole in the Pentagon does not fit the size of a 757, which left no debris and its wings which supposed had sheared off, also
vanished.
- Flight 93 also left no debris and looked like just a hole in the ground. The FBI changed their explanation why several times. First they said the
plane was disintegrated by the speed of the impact. Then they said the debris was scattered over miles. Finally they said the debris was all
underground. Yet it was never shown to the public.
- Building 7, the third tower to collapse on 9/11, was not even hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at near free fall speed symmetrically into its own
footprint. Fire cannot explain this and never has. Neither could the 9/11 Commission. NIST also failed to account for all the features. Only
controlled demolition could account for this collapse, scientifically speaking. Even the top demolition expert in Europe, Danny Jowenko, said after
viewing the video of the Building 7 collapse that it was absolutely the result of controlled demolition without a doubt.
- NORAD failed to intercept four airliners off course on 9/11, which was impossible according to their standard 24/7 procedures. Therefore, it would
appear that they were ordered to stand down. Additionally, there were war games on 9/11 that confused NORAD as to which of the hijackers were real and
which were simulated. Dick Cheney is also reportedly said to have taken control of NORAD and ordered a stand down.
- Many eyewitnesses report underground sub-basement explosions in the WTC that occurred at different times from the airline hits. William Rodriguez
for instance reported an explosion from below that pushed him UPWARD. This contradicts the official story or leaves it incomplete. Yet the 9/11
commission ignored this testimony cause it didn't fit into what they were assigned to find.
- Hundreds of people heard and felt explosions and bombs going off before the WTC collapse, including members of the mainstream media. This is well
documented and featured in CNN interviews. Abundant video footage of these hundreds of witnesses can be viewed online and in 9/11 documentaries, one
of which is "9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used?" which you can see on YouTube and Google Video (video.google.com...).
- Thermite or thermate evidence was found in the WTC dust and debris by scientists, and so was molten metal, which suggests that explosives were used.
Scientific papers have been published on this by Dr. Steven Jones and others.
- There is not enough force from the jet fuel fires or the top portions of the WTC to pulverize all the concrete to dust and fine powder like that.
Where did all that unexplained energy come from?
- All the ten key features of the WTC and Building 7 collapse fit that of a controlled demolition and NONE of them fit that of the fire induced
collapse of the official story. This is outlined at AE911Truth.org and in their flowcharts and superb 2 hour film presentation "9/11 Blueprint for
Truth" which you can watch on YouTube or Google Video (video.google.com...). Therefore, since the official explanation of the collapses are ZERO
for 10, it would appear to be conclusively and scientifically ruled out. Nothing could be more concrete and scientific than that.
- None of the hijacked airliner pilots punched in their emergency code to signal a hijacking in progress, as they were trained to do.
- Airline pilots do not usually give up the cockpit controls to hijackers. That is the last thing they would do, as their first priority is the safety
of the passengers. They usually will fly hijackers to wherever they want to go, but will not give up the cockpit, especially to hijackers with only
knives and box cutters. And besides, cockpit doors are usually not open for people to get into.

- The BBC and CNN reported the collapse of Building 7 about 20 minutes before it happened, indicating foreknowledge or that they were scripted. Of
course, they claim that it was just a mix up, but what else do you expect them to say? "Oops you got me?!"
- Before 9/11, there were put options on airline stocks far above normal, around 600 percent some say, which suggests that there was foreknowledge of
the event.
- The FBI admitted that there was no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11 and that's why he is not wanted for 9/11 on their home page. Yet
the Bush Administration and the mainstream media treats it as Gospel Truth.

So far, all attempts from defenders of the official story to explain away the mysteries, gaping holes and scientific impossibilities above have
failed. They usually consist of cop outs and obfuscation attempts that do not address the heart of the matter. Either that, or they ridicule any
questioning and critical thinking about the official story. Objectivity does not seem to be the motivators of the defenders of the official story.

However, if we take the inside job hypothesis that 9/11 was a staged false flag event designed to bring us into war in the Middle East, which explains
many of the mysteries above, that side also leaves many unanswered questions and anomalies that make no sense as well. Here are some examples.

Why the inside job hypothesis doesn't make sense:

- Why would the perpetrators of 9/11 leave so many suspicious smoking guns? If I were staging a false flag event, I would be trying to leave as little
inconsistencies and anomalies as possible to prevent suspicion and exposure. Wouldn't smart criminals and conspiracists make sure not to leave
suspicious contradictory evidence behind?
- Why would the perpetrators destroy Building 7 and collapse it like a controlled demolition even though it had not been hit by a plane? Why leave
such an obvious smoking gun in public that would lead to the exposing of the fraud?
- If they needed to destroy incriminating documents or data in Building 7, such as the ENRON scandal case files, why not simply shred the documents or
erase them from the computer hard drives? And besides, wouldn't all key data uploaded to some internet server in cyberspace as backup anyway? Why
destroy the whole building and leave incriminating evidence for all to see?
- If a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but it was a missile or something else, why would they stage this event knowing full well that there would
be a high risk that people outside would see that it was a missle and not a 757, which would ruin the whole lie? It seems like a reckless hoax that
isn't even worth the risk.
- In fact, the WTC collapses alone would have been sufficient for carrying out the false flag attack to get us into war. So why stage another highly
elaborate incident like the Pentagon Crash when it wouldn't have been necessary and would leave the plot open for further exposure? It would have
been a huge unnecessary risk in the plot. (Maybe, perhaps, since the Pentagon is in the shape of the Star of David, it was some form of occult
ritual?)
- Why crash Flight 93 into the ground? For what purpose? And why leave no debris which made it look suspicious? If I were staging a crash, I'd at
least leave some debris to make it look believable.
- If the hijackers were CIA agents or working with the US government, how would they be able to find hijackers willing to sacrifice their lives for
this plot? What would they get out of it? And why would Muslim hijackers want to comply with a US government plot anyway?
- But if the hijackers acted alone, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, then how could they fly 757's with no experience, get the pilots to give up the
cockpits, and have NORAD stand down, as outlined in the section above?
- Or, if there were no real hijackers on those flights (some are reportedly still alive) then who was flying those planes that hit the WTC? Were they
remote controlled? If so, what happened to the passengers and crews of those flights? Were they knocked out by tear gas, as Alex Jones
hypothesized?
- If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 didn't make that hole in the ground in Shanksville, PA, then what happened to the passengers
and crews of those flights? How would they get rid of them? If they were taken somewhere and shot, how could you be sure that your military ops people
would follow through with such a horrific thing? If the passengers are fictitious, wouldn't investigators find out? Either way seems too
improbable.
- Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" statement regarding Building 7 in a PBS interview makes no sense either way. He says he was referring to
the fire fighters. However, before Building 7's collapse, there there no firefighters there as they had been evacuated from it five hours prior. And
plus, he said "pull it" not "pull them", and people are referred to as "them" not "it" of course. But if he had been involved in a conspiracy,
why leave such an incriminating clue on national television?
- If this was an inside job, the way they carried out this plot seems way too risky and complicated for any intelligent person to expect to succeed.
So many hundreds of things could have gone wrong that would have foiled the plot or exposed it. It would have involved hundreds of events that would
have had to be timed just right, and on the first try too. And it would have involved many people who would have to be expected to all follow through
on the plan to the point where one foul up could ruin the whole thing.

I'm sure there are more anomalies, but you get the idea...

So you see, as with the JFK Assassination, no hypothesis seems to explain all the data (unless you go for the fantastic ones). That's why the 9/11
issue is perhaps the biggest mystery and conspiracy of all.

So what then can we conclude? Well I don't know. Obviously something is not being told here, especially since there's never been a real unbiased
independent investigation. And that's why there needs to be one.

Who knows? We can't rule out the possibility that the whole 9/11 event was intended to be disputed and ambiguous for whatever diabolical reason.
Perhaps it is a diversion from something else? After all, serious people who stage something do not leave so many gaping holes and incriminating
evidence behind. So perhaps it was deliberately set up this way?

Anyone who denies there are unanswered questions about that day is just being completely irrational, and we all know there are plenty of those types
to go around today, from high school kids who just want to make themselves feel big belittling others, to old men and women who simply can't fathom
their country would have ever come to this much of a low.

The only example you need of this is the explosions that were happening all over the WTC complex that day. We still don't have explanations for any
of these, despite scores of witness testimonies, recordings, photos of damage caused by them, all of it. People don't even WANT an investigated
answer to this question and are content simply speculating and mocking others who would dare believe they could have been explosives or bombs. The
underground basement levels in those buildings were already bombed in 1993 and FBI agents were even telling MSM on live TV that day that they
suspected the same thing had happened again to coincide with the plane impacts. Something which today, even though it has never been investigated, is
just shrugged off and considered paranoid or even delusional.

We are living in George Orwell's 1984. Truth is accepted as fiction and fiction accepted as truth. No one can say we weren't warned.

A lot of the arguments you've presented as problems with the original story seem to be based on incorrect and/or misleading premises. Sorry, but the
more these myths and falsehoods persist, the more 'truthers' will suspect these falsehoods are actually truth.

Kudos for bringing in both sides of an argument. Still though, it's quite upsetting to see how many people buy into the notions that a few
unexplained anomalies can rewrite an extremely solid picture established though multiple lines of inquiry. I imagine that if the incorrect information
ever ceases to be disseminated, the less likely it is that people will be subjected to falling into the traps presened by so-called "truthers".

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Still though, it's quite upsetting to see how many people buy into the notions that a few unexplained anomalies can rewrite an extremely solid
picture established though multiple lines of inquiry.

What exactly is this "extremely solid picture," and what exactly were the "multiple lines of inquiry"?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Still though, it's quite upsetting to see how many people buy into the notions that a few unexplained anomalies can rewrite an extremely solid
picture established though multiple lines of inquiry.

What exactly is this "extremely solid picture," and what exactly were the "multiple lines of inquiry"?

With all due respect, from our exchanges it's clear that you're firmly embedded in the conspiratorial aspects and have fully rejected the
established events. I see no benefit in engaging a nitpicking of my statements. Your mind seems to be made up. I'm fine with that. My problem is much
more directed at the incorrect premises presented as the problems with the official story.

Originally posted by WWu777
After researching the whole 9/11 debate for a long time now, and seeing almost every film out there about it, I've come to realize that there are
many anomalies, gaping holes and mysteries on both sides that make no sense.

The problem, unfortunately, is that most of the "mysteries" you're using to base your skepticism upon are hogwash, and are entirely the fabrication
of these damned fool conspiracy web sites intentionally putting out false information to get people all paranoid over shadows-

1) The fires never melted the steel. It heated the steel unevenly and caused iregular thermal expansion, resulting in warping and loss of structural
integrity. Gravity did the rest.

2) Yes, plane parts were found at the WTC and Pentagon site

3) The BBC openly admitted they made a mistake in their report. Someone handed them a bulletin misidentifying the proper name of the building that
had fallen and they ran with it.

4) This "fell at free fall speed" bit is nothing but a red herring, as noone has been able to determine how fast the towers *should* have fallen,
given the peculiar design of the building, the damage from the impact, and from the resulting fires. If you can't know how fast it should have
fallen, then you can't determine whether it fell too fast.

5) The FBI isn't listing him on their web site becuase they can't. They don't charge anyone with crimes, it's the responsibility of a Grand jury,
meaning it would be tried in civilian courts. The gov't has always made it known they want to try Bin Laden in a military court to keep the
proceedings secret. Adolf Hitler was never on the ten most wanted list for the same reason.

6) The black boxes were found at the Pentagon site.

...and on and on it goes. It goes without saying that if these conspriacy web sites are knowingly embellishing and misrepresenting the facts to get
people to believe what they want them to believe, it's a de facto admission that they know what they're saying is false. You have my compliments
for wanting to examine both sides of the issue, but for you to do that, you know you need to start with accurate information beforehand.

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it.

Wrong.
It´s been demonstrated that the fires were indeed hot enough to weaken the steel to a point of failure.
No melted steel has been claimed by any official source.

But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete.

Wrong.
There´s no virtual free fall speed of the collapse at all. In fact the speed of collapse is much slower than free fall speed. Even Chandler showed
this in his own video.
Concrete pulvierizes when it fails due to pressure.

No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result in such a collapse.

- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, three skyscrapers collapsed completely from fire, the WTC towers and Building 7. Yet no steel skyscraper has
ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11. There is no scientific scenario that allows a skyscraper to collapse at near free fall speed from fire.
None at all.

Wrong. Not a first, and wrong also to say that the buildings collapsed due to fire. They collapsed due to structural damage, plus fire.

- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, large airliners have crashed into structures and grounds and left no debris. No large airliner has ever
crashed and left no debris. Yet on 9/11, it happened to four airliners.

Wrong again. Debris was left and found of all airliners. Plus human remains of passengers and crew that were possitively identified through DNA.

- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, the black boxes in crashed airliners disintegrated and were never found. In airline crashes, the black box
is always recovered. Crash investigators will tell you that. They are virtually indestructible and made of a bright orange/pink color, so they are
always found. Yet on 9/11, all four black boxes from the four flights were said to have disintegrated (contrary to testimonies that report
otherwise).

Wrong again. Not a first in history either. Black boxes are not always found or indestructible, in many accidents black boxes have been lost, or
found to be unusable to investigate the crash.
Not all the four boxes were said to have disintegrated. Wrong again. The fact is that the Pentagon and Shanksville recorders were recovered and
actually a lot of usefull information was found in them.

- The flight that hit the Pentagon made maneuvers that are virtually impossible on a 757, even for an expert pilot. Yet the hijacker that allegedly
flew the airliner was said to be a bad pilot who could not even fly a small plane well. This is impossible to explain away.

Wrong again. The maneuvers made by the Pentagon plane were all within the design limitations of said aircraft. Slightly above what you would expect
in a regular passenger flight but certainly far from virtually impossible, or needing an expert pilot at the controls. Just a rookie who knew the
basics to be able to steer the craft to target was all that was needed.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
The various ways that the account of 911 have been established. I know you're more intelligent than this. Let's not play games.

No, I really do want you to list the reports and what they proved. Have you read the Kean Commission Report? Have you read the FEMA or NIST reports?
Those are the only three I can think of that were based on evidence and data that was supposedly authentic (even though NIST and FEMA never released
their calculations or parameters relevant to their hypotheses), that tried to establish an authoritative account of everything significant that
happened.

So this is why I want you to be more specific when you say things like "extremely solid picture" and "multiple lines of inquiry," because after
all those are pretty vague statements and I'm simply asking for them to be qualified with specific examples of what you think has been proven by now.

however, i think that they wanted to leave holes in the "official story"
maybe they think they are doing 'right' by catalyzing the masses big wake-up call...separating the wheat from the chaff (the sheep from the
logical-thinkers lol) or at least separate and divide the masses even more...
i don't know...
but i do know they wanted people to be able to make all these "crazy theories" about 9/11 being an inside job.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
The various ways that the account of 911 have been established. I know you're more intelligent than this. Let's not play games.

No, I really do want you to list the reports and what they proved. Have you read the Kean Commission Report? Have you read the FEMA or NIST reports?
Those are the only three I can think of that were based on evidence and data that was supposedly authentic (even though NIST and FEMA never released
their calculations or parameters relevant to their hypotheses), that tried to establish an authoritative account of everything significant that
happened.

So this is why I want you to be more specific when you say things like "extremely solid picture" and "multiple lines of inquiry," because after
all those are pretty vague statements and I'm simply asking for them to be qualified with specific examples of what you think has been proven by now.

No. That was not my point, and I told you I wasn't interested in engaging a nitpicking of my statements. Sorry, I'm not interested in contributing
to a derailing.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No. That was not my point, and I told you I wasn't interested in engaging a nitpicking of my statements. Sorry, I'm not interested in contributing
to a derailing.

It's not derailing. You said you took exception to a lot of the points because you felt they had already been addressed by some kind of extensive
investigation. And I asked for specific examples related to this.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No. That was not my point, and I told you I wasn't interested in engaging a nitpicking of my statements. Sorry, I'm not interested in contributing
to a derailing.

It's not derailing. You said you took exception to a lot of the points because you felt they had already been addressed by some kind of extensive
investigation. And I asked for specific examples related to this.

That is not what I said. This is:

it's quite upsetting to see how many people buy into the notions that a few unexplained anomalies can rewrite an extremely solid picture
established though multiple lines of inquiry.

If you wish to engage me stick to my point. For the last time: I will not participate in nitpicking and/or derailing.

Flight 77 made a 270 degree turn into a downward spiral at around 500mph, descending at such a rate as to guarantee crashing into the ground.
Then it flew 6 feet above the ground at 500mph before hitting the Pentagon, yet it is aerodynamically impossible for an aircraft to move at that speed
so close to the ground.

Wrong speed for the "spiral turn". Rate of descent quite normal.
And WRONG about aerodynamic impossibility.

- The five meter hole in the Pentagon does not fit the size of a 757, which left no debris and its wings which supposed had sheared off, also
vanished.

Wrong. The B757 size and shape actually matches the damage seen at the Pentagon. Wrong about the wings shearing off or vanishing. They
disintegrated into bits due to impact and explosion.

- Flight 93 also left no debris and looked like just a hole in the ground. The FBI changed their explanation why several times. First they said the
plane was disintegrated by the speed of the impact. Then they said the debris was scattered over miles. Finally they said the debris was all
underground. Yet it was never shown to the public.

I don´t really know that the FBI changed their explanation about UA 93 so I have to pass on that statement.
Debris was indeed found and recovered from UA 93 as well as human remains that were identified by DNA as passengers and crew of that flight.
I don´t think anybody said debris was ALL UNDERGROUND.

- Building 7, the third tower to collapse on 9/11, was not even hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at near free fall speed symmetrically into its own
footprint.

Building 7 was hit by BIG CHUNKS of one of the Towers. Don´t know what would be worse, if this or a plane.
Wrong on speed of collapse as well. There was only a brief 2.25 sec. of near free fall acceleration of the falling structure. This is because the
building had a large open space lobby several floors high, when the falling structure found this open space on it´s way down there was obviously very
little resistance to slow it down.
And wrong also about collapsing into its own footprint. 7 fell to a side and the northern face of the building ended up pretty much on top of the
pile.

Fire cannot explain this and never has. Neither could the 9/11 Commission. NIST also failed to account for all the features. Only controlled
demolition could account for this collapse, scientifically speaking.

Wrong.
Nobody tired to explain this only using the fire. There was structural damage added to the fire.
There are many many features of CD missing from the collapse, so no, CD can´t account for it, scientifically speaking. NIST did explain the collapse
and it is the best expanation we have so far.

Even the top demolition expert in Europe, Danny Jowenko, said after viewing the video of the Building 7 collapse that it was absolutely the result of
controlled demolition without a doubt.

Many other demolition experts all over the world have said that the CD
scenario for 7 as well as Towers 1 and 2 are preposterous claims.
What about them?? Are we to believe Jowenko alone??

If you're trying to say your assertion that there was an "extremely clear picture" presented by "multiple lines of inquiry" was irrelevant and
off-topic, and so doesn't warrant discussion, then fine, I'll agree to that. I was just asking you to back it up.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummerit's quite upsetting to see how many people buy into the notions that a few unexplained
anomalies can rewrite an extremely solid picture established though multiple lines of inquiry.

What multiple lines of inquiry?

You do know that most of the evidence and the FBI crime scene reports have not been released?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummerit's quite upsetting to see how many people buy into the notions that a few unexplained
anomalies can rewrite an extremely solid picture established though multiple lines of inquiry.

What multiple lines of inquiry?

You do know that most of the evidence and the FBI crime scene reports have not been released?

Do people actually not understand how the scenario of 911 was arrived at? If you genuinely don't know then your understanding of the events need to
be bolstered by research. If you genuinely do know, then as I've stated multiple times it's nitpicking my statement and derailing away from the
point of my entire post.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.